|
Working for the
Party and its causes usually brings content and satisfaction, and I
hope you have found this to be so. There are, of course, occasional
moments of hurt or irritation, often anger, though never, so far,
despair. Probably the nastiest experience I look back on arose from a
misguided attempt on my part to bring an end to a dispute between
factions which had given rise to the vilest slandering by one member
of another’s family. If people were only aware of what was being said,
they would surely come to their senses and the demons would be driven
out. So I thought, but that was not how it all worked out. No doubt we
all learned something.
That episode remained largely
personal in its impact. The other, which caused considerable trouble
for the Party, was grounded in rival interpretations of our best
interests, and the procedures we had devised to serve them. Candidate
selection was the issue, and we ran into trouble by following
procedures which had been good enough for a Party which was little
more than a campaigning co-operative but which, in the event, did not
prove satisfactory for a Party which had grown so fast and so large.
One complication, not
appreciated in advance, was that in some areas a number of our new
activists had experience in other parties, and assumed that their
practices could be brought with them into our organisation. Some were
ex-Liberals, and brought with them the Liberal delusions that
democracy was just about pleasing yourself at all times, and that a
party could somehow organise coherently on such a basis. When such
beliefs took hold in a well-defined community, where the growth of the
Party owed more to the personal decision of local people than to any
active recruiting organised by party agencies, we had a feudal-like
situation, with powerful local barons seeing no need to defer to any
central authority.
The result was in all respects
disastrous. Personal animosities, loss of support, collapse of our
attempts to build strength in the area all rounded off with a
disappointing election result, taught us all some hard lessons.
Not that we all took those
lessons. The most obvious lesson, which should have dawned on
everyone, was that the selection of candidates was a vitally important
part, of the duties of a National Executive and its appointed
officials. Ability was to be looked for.
Everyone probably agreed on
that, as a theory at least, though the defining of "ability" was
liable to be a bit subjective. But much more vital was the need to
assess an applicant’s loyalty. Were they proud to have the trust of
the Party, and could they be relied upon to work to agreed goals by
agreed steps? Or would they see their selection as merely their due? A
proper tribute to their own excellence? Would they consider themselves
free to act purely on the promptings of their own opinions,
prejudices, conscience, with little or no reference to a corporate
Party opinion?
All such behaviour would be
perfectly proper in principle. We all know or should know, the
difference between "representative" and "delegate", but pleasing
yourself is a freedom to be enjoyed by Independents, to whom be all
honour and respect, but it is not available to persons elected by the
work and resources of colleagues and with whatever advantage comes
with a Party endorsement. It is the duty of our leadership to be alert
to the fact that vanity, location, individual priorities, can all
carry the risk of unwise selection. Those given responsibility must
assess and select, and their collegues must support them against the
vengeful fury of the offended proud, the wee pool’s big fish, the
enthusiast with his own agenda, who regards the SNP as a mere means to
an end, to be smilingly tolerated and used, and all their supporters
who arrive at National Council breathing fire.
If these things aren’t done
carefully and coolly, just wait for the headlines in time to come.
|
